FRANZ BOAS AND BRONISLAW MALINOWSKY:

A CONTRAST, COMPARISON, AND ANALYSIS

AsaA. Helm
Department of Anthropology
Northern Kentucky University

To understand the individual personalities and hence the individual accom-

plishments of Franz Boas and Bronislaw Malinowski with regards to the
field of anthropology, one must understand the schools of thought utilized in
their approaches to conducting fieldwork and methodology. Through these
basic understandings, one can see not only the accomplishments made, but
also the lasting impressions left in and the influences they have had on the
field of anthropology. To both Boas and Malinowski, the collection of data
was a meticulous process. Both believed that without direct ethnographic
field research, data was essentially useless. This is in direct contrast to the
approach taken by many of the 'armchair theorists' of the nineteenth century.
These individuals, such as Sir Edward Burnett Tylor believed that anthro-
pologists did not need to be involved in data collection whatsoever, but that
their job was to compile, organize, and classify the data in an evolutionary
timeline. Tylor goes on to suggest that it is not who collected the data that is
important, but rather the data itself (McGee & Warms 2000:31).

To both Boas and Malinowski, the meticulous collection of ethnographic

data by a properly trained researcher is paramount to understanding the mate-
rial in its correct and intended format. Though Boas and Malinowski may
have had similar views on the importance of fieldwork, they differed on the
actual methodology. Boas focused on the history of a culture. He felt that
only by recreating the culture from a historical perspective could the cultural
phenomena be properly explained. Boas, while differing in the process of
data collection, did have some consistent views on the importance of history
with those ofTylor. Both believed that culture is an evolutionary phenome-
non and that by tracing its developmental history one could understand and
explain it, though their reasons for this thinking differed (McGee & Warms
2000:29). Malinowski saw the reconstruction of history as a waste of time,
and that the only way to properly explain a culture was to not only live
among them, but also to participate in all daily activities. Through this par-
ticipant observation an outsider (the anthropologist) could carry out an unbi-
ased and completely objective study ofthe culture. The purpose of this paper
is to analyze, compare, and contrast the different methodologies and data
collection techniques of Franz Boas and Bronislaw Malinowski. Both of
these men were and still are extremely prominent and important anthropo-
logical figures, and their influences within the field of anthropology are in-
valuable. Through these explanations, one will realize and begin to under-
stand the different schools of thought (American and British primarily) and
how and why they influence perceptions still to this day.

Background
Franz Boas (1858-1942), a well known and highly thought of anthropologist
is sometimes referred to as the father of American anthropology. He grew up
a German born Jew under the roof of a prosperous businessman and a some-
what unusual, but civically active mother who founded the first Froebel Kin-
dergarten. He spent the first nineteen years of his life in this environment,
where he took an interest in botany and various other natural sciences
(Kroeber 1943:5), which would later play greatly into his research methods.
His academic career continued at universities in Heidelburg and Bonn where
he studied geography and physics. He continued on to obtain his doctorate at
Kiel in 1881. His dissertation, "Contributions to the Understanding of the
Color of Water", dealt with the absorption, reflection, and the polarization of
light in seawater (Kroeber 1943:5). Bohannon and Glazer with regards to
Boas' transition to anthropology state:

A staunch believer in the value of first-hand information, he de-

cided in 1883 to undertake a geologic expedition to investigate sea-
water under Arctic conditions. His year-long stay with the whalers
and Eskimos turned Boas into an ethnographer and convinced him
that the knowledge gained by mere observation is useless without un-
derstanding the traditions that condition the perceiver. This realiza-
tion, along with the warm friendships of his Arctic hosts, precipitated
what was to become his life-long interest - field research as a royal
road to anthropology (1973:81).

No sooner than did Boas accept a position in geography at the University of

Berlin in 1886, when he became 'inspired by a group of visiting Bella Coola
Indians' that prompted the beginnings of his lifelong study of indigenous
peoples ofthe Northwest Coast (Bohannon and Glazer 1973:81). After a
year of fieldwork in British Columbia, Boas returned to Germany, married,
and decided to become an American (Bohannon and Glazer 1973 :81 and
Lowie 1937:129). Amongst his fieldwork with the British Columbia tribes,
Boas obtained his first position in the United States at Clark University in
1889. He left his position at Clark and from 1892-1894 he worked on the an-
thropological exhibits at the Chicago World's Fair, which he left due to per-
sonal conflicts. From Chicago, Boas moved to the American Museum of
Natural History in New York (where he again was forced to resign due to
further personality conflicts) and soon began teaching at Columbia Univer-
sity where he stayed until he retired in 1936 (Lowie 1937:129). There is
some discrepancy with regard to the ability of Boas' teaching. Though he
trained a generation of 'brilliant and productive anthropologists' such as A.L.
Kroeber, Paul Radin, and Edward Sapir, his lectures were seen as less than
desirable by many (Bohannon and Glazer 1973:82). Franz Boas was a stub-
born, ifnot abrasive man towards many with the exceptions of his family and
closest, most talented students with which he was a warm and caring man.
The scars on his face are reportedly from several dueling encounters he had
while in college (quite possibly due to problems associated with him being of
Jewish descent), but on more than one occasion he claimed them to be from
polar bear clawing (Bohannon and Glazer 1973:81).

Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942) was born to an aristocratic and cultured

family in Krakow, Poland. This environment provided him with a multilin-
gual background and taught him a sense of worldliness. He received a doc-
torate with honors from the University of Krakow in mathematics and phys-
ics in 1908 (Voget 1975:513). Shortly thereafter, Malinowski was stricken
with tuberculosis, and it is during his recovery time that he became en-
thralled with the field of anthropology. During his recovery he read Frazer's
The Golden Bough as his "first attempt to read an English masterpiece in the
original", and this was his inspiration (Bohannon and Glazer 1973:272).

In 1910, Malinowski began his anthropological graduate work at the London

School of Economics where he later obtained a doctorate in 1916. It is during
these years that Malinowski is introduced to the people ofMailu and the Tro-
briand Islands with whom he would later spend a great deal of time research-
ing (Bohannon and Glazer 1973:272 and Voget 1975:513-514). Malinowski
was in the field when Wodd War I broke out, and being an Austro-
Hungarian national, technically was considered to be an enemy-alien. With
common sense and cool heads prevailing, Malinowski was permitted to re-
main in the field instead of being detained. It is during these years that he
gathered the majority of his information on the Trobriand Islanders from
which his many classics were based (Bohannon and Glazer 1973:273). Upon
his return to Australia in 1918, Malinowski married Elsie Masson, the daugh-
ter of a University ofMelboume professor.
One can see the effects of his separation from his now published private diary
that he was depressed a great majority ofthe time and suffered both psycho-
logically and physically, patterns that would trouble him for the remainder of
his life (Bohannon and Glazer 1973:273). In 1921, he began teaching at the
London School of Economics, where he later became the school's first pro-
fessor of anthropology. Malinowski's teaching abilities were exceptional,
and like Boas, he too trained an entire generation including E. E. Evans-
Pritchard and Raymond Firth (Bohannon and Glazer 1973:273). Firth says
that "almost more than anything else, Malinowski was a great teacher." He
says that Malinowski was a gifted, inspiring, and perceptive man in addition
to his complex and highly intelligent personality (1957:7-8). He was in the
United States when World War II broke out and stayed there until his death
in 1942. While in the U.S., he did work with the Zapotec Indians in Oaxaca,
Mexico during summer vacations and was appointed as a professor at Yale
shortly before his death (Firth 19572-9).

Schools of Thought & Methodologies

Having a basic understanding of the backgrounds ofthese two individuals,
one can now move forward and with more confidence begin in the process of
understanding their schools of thought and approaches to fieldwork. Both
Boas and Malinowski started out within the field of the physical sciences and
were educated in Germany and Poland respectively, but the majority oftheir
influences within the anthropological field were made in the United States
and England (Bamouw 1971:38). With these similarities one can see how and
why their ethnographic research was performed with such detail and com-
plexity. Even though there were some similarities between these two promi-
nent anthropological figures, the differences in their processes and method-
ologies were at times notable.

Franz Boas - The Historical Method and Natural History Approach

Boas' early experiences on Baffin Island led him to the conclusion that would
stick with him and dominate his anthropological career. According to
Bamouw, this conclusion showed Boas that:

Geography plays a mainly limiting rather than creative role. The

Eskimos did things in spite of their environment, not just because of
it; they had a particular history and set of traditions behind them
which were different from those of other northerly peoples, such as
the Siberian Chukchee, who lived in a similar environment. A culture
is shaped by many historical forces, including contacts with other so-
cieties (1971 :39).
Boas felt that the 19th century cultural evolutionists made premature generali-
zations based on poor and inadequate information. This information was ob-
tained, not from a qualified researcher, but rather from individuals ''who often
had only a biased, superficial understanding of the people they were observ-
ing" and provided more conjecture than fact (Barnouw 1971:39). Boas (and
later, his students) made it a point to criticize these views and methods and
said that we must first get the facts in order to build a reliable body of ethno-
graphic data from which better generalizations then can be made. Boas used
all fields of anthropology to ascertain proper information in the proper con-
text. This full-bodied approach allowed Boas to reconstruct "the history of
the growth of ideas with much greater accuracy than the generalizations of a
comparative method" (Hyatt 1990:43).

Cultures to Boas were unique and entirely separate entities, and therefore
could in no way, shape, or form be compared to another even ifunder similar
social, economic, and environmental conditions. Boas wanted to study each
culture in its entirety rather than in bits and pieces. By studying a unique cul-
ture in its entirety; by investigating customs, language, social systems, and by
even collecting physical measurements, one can understand a cultures' psy-
chology. Hyatt goes on to say that ,"merging these together, the anthropolo-
gist could then penetrate the 'psychological factors' that shaped a culture and
ascertain the extent to which 'historical connections' contributed to the life-
style of a given society" (1990:43).

Boas' early viewpoints on culture showed he thought very little of the individ-
ual on the whole. This is in direct opposition to Malinowski's views, but over
time Boas changed his views somewhat, though not to the extent of Mali-
nowski's. This created a rift between his followers on the importance of the
individual within a society (McGee and Warms 2000:137). This view
changed in part due to his realization that whether or not the person was
"typical" to his/her society, the society or culture therein has boundaries set
up to keep individuals within the norms of what is and what is not acceptable
to them. Boas used this also as a crutch supporting his view on the collection
of data from informants. He felt that he could obtain all the knowledge
needed to understand a culture from a few key people. This is in part also to
the fact that one can only obtain knowledge from persons willing to or having
the time to dispense it (Goldschmidt 1959:58-59).
Bronislaw Malinowski - Functionalism, Participant Observation
and the Individual
"The archfunctionalist of anthropology, Malinowski is regarded as a founder
of modern functionalism in anthropology" (Bohannon and Glazer 1973:274).
His ideas of functionalism point to the needs ofthe individual in turn become
the needs of the society. Bohannon and Glazer comment that,

Malinowski's functionalism is founded on what he regards as the

seven basic needs of man: nutrition, reproduction, bodily comforts,
safety, relaxation, movement, and growth. The individual needs are
satisfied by derived cultural and social institutions, whose functions
are to satisfy those needs. In other words, every social institution has a
need to satisfy, and so does every cultural item. Malinowski's view of
culture is also based on human biosocial needs - he regards culture as a
tool that responds to the needs of human beings in a way that is above
any adaptation (1973:274).

This particular view of functionalism, unique to Malinowski, shows that

"various cultural beliefs and practices contributed to the smooth functioning of
the society while providing individual biological or psychological bene-
fits" (McGee & Warms 2000: 158). The individual was imperative because it
is the individuals who make up the group. These individuals therefore are
good representations of the group because it is they who perform the daily ac-
tivities, rituals, and so on. This is the key to understanding a culture according
to Malinowski. Malinowski, like Boas, believed that only through comprehen-
sive and detailed fieldwork could a proper ethnography be done. He actively
hunted for information using a variety of techniques and was renowned for his
detail in data collection, but did not feel that such data was sufficient, no mat-
ter how detailed. To him, only by working side by side, doing the things the
natives do could an ethnographer understand the subtleties of a culture that
would otherwise remain unseen (Firth 1957:78-79). Sir James Frazer further
points out in the preface of Argonauts of the Western Pacific the thoroughness
of Malinowski's fieldwork and his ability to see within a culture:

It is characteristic of Dr. Malinowski's method that he takes full ac-

count of the complexity of human nature. He sees the man, so to say,
in the round and not in the flat. He remembers that a man is a creature
of emotion at least as much as of reason, and he is constantly at pains
to discover the emotional as well as the rational basis of human action
(1922:ix).
Critics and Contributions
No matter what influence Franz Boas had on the field of anthropology, he
still had his critics. Boas refused to theorize about developing anthropologi-
callaws and was seen by some as a hindrance and a detriment to the field.
He was focused on precise methodology and a strict scientific method. He
was concerned about the reconstruction of history, not with the formation of
laws derived from it (Hyatt 1990:44). Boas did not technically leave behind
a "school of thought", but rather a handful of individuals trained by him and
left to develop and make their own decisions for better or for worse (Voget:
1975:337). Not only did Boas use the four-field approach in his fieldwork
(cultural, archaeology, physical/biological, and linguistics), but also in his
everyday life. Boas combated racism the majority of his life, and I feel that
this was a compelling factor in his becoming an anthropologist. He used his
position and expertise on more than one occasion to fight racism on all fronts
and this agenda continued on until his death. Having been born into a Jewish
family in Germany and seeing the rise of Hitler's Nazi party in the 30s and
40s further provoked his feelings on this matter.

Malinowski's field research was thought by many to be a wonderful example

of completely unbiased work by an extraordinary anthropologist. While it
very well may be a wonderful collection of detailed data, it was hardly unbi-
ased. While he was doing fieldwork in the South Pacific, he battled periods
of depression and anger pointed towards the indigenous peoples. His diary
(1967) repeatedly shows slanderous and racial remarks towards informants
and his constant reliance upon the needle to battle his depression and lone-
someness. These discoveries came as a great shock to many within the an-
thropological community upon the release of his diaries. The amazing thing
about Malinowski's biases is that he was completely aware of them and took
the appropriate measures to ensure they did not interfere with his fieldwork.
Not only did he do this, but he was also his own hardest critic.

Malinowski considered it the duty of the anthropologist to render a

careful and sincere account of his credentials and his mistakes in the
field; and in Appendix II to Coral Gardens, he recorded his
'Confessions of Ignorance and Failure'. He admitted that a general
source of inadequacies in all his material, whether photographic or
linguistic or descriptive, consisted in the fact that, like every ethnog-
rapher, he was lured by the dramatic, exceptional, and sensational;
and he castigated himself for not treating the 'drab, everyday, minor
 events with the same love and interest as sensational, large-scale hap-
penings' (1957:79).

Conclusion
Nearly sixty years after their deaths, which coincidently both happened in
1942, Franz Boas and Bronislaw Malinowski still continue to be central to
the discipline of anthropology. The approaches, schools of thought, and
methodologies introduced by Boas and Malinowski are still paramount to the
field. This was seen at an early time when A.R. Radcliffe-Brown described
the emergences of these trends in 1929. He said there were two different and
opposing tendencies in the study of culture. One being the American based
view of Franz Boas, which he called the most popular. This regards culture
purely from the historical standpoint, and "attempts, in the absence of any
historical records, to multiply and elaborate hypothetical reconstructions of
an unknown past." The second view, associated with the British and Mali-
nowski, had to do with treating each culture as a "functionally interrelated
system and to endeavor to discover the general laws of function for human
society as a whole." He goes on to say, "It does not neglect the historical
point of view, but regards the processes of social change as something to be
studied by actual observation over a period, or by the use of authentic and de-
tailed records." This process accepts history but rejects hypothetical history
(Naroll & Naroll1973:187).

Whether or not Boas or even Malinowski would have accepted this point of
view is inconsequential. The fact of the matter is that the point was made
about the differences in method. To say one is better than the other is not
only impractical, but also irrelevant. No one way of doing something can be
entirely right or entirely wrong. So is the case with this. People use things to
their liking, or as the use suits them, and ethnography is not (at least should-
n't be) any different.

It is unfortunate in my eyes that there is no adequate way in comparing these

two men other than the format given; that is the broken manner in which ma-
terial is presented. There is no format that allows such detail to be commin-
gled with other information without confusion or repetition setting in, hence
the reason I have chosen to separate these two men and their methodologies
into different sections and allow the reader to compare, contrast, or ignore the
information presented in the manner they see fit. By no means is this an ade-
quate representation of the importance of such anthropological greats as
Franz Boas and Bronislaw Malinowski. It is however an attempt at shedding
some light on their roles and contributions within the field of anthropology to
not only the layperson, but also the professional.

Barnouw, Victor
1971 An Introduction to Anthropology. Volume Two - Ethnology. The Dorsey
Press, Homewood, Illinois.

Bohannon, Paul & Glazer, Mark

1972 High Points in Anthropology. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York.
Firth, Raymond
1957 Man & Culture - An Evaluation of the Work of Bronislaw Malinowski.
Humanities Press, New York.

Goldschmidt, Walter
1958 The Anthropology of Franz Boas - Essays on the Centennial of His Birth, in
American Anthropologist, Memoir NO. 89. The American Anthropological As-
sociation, New York.

Hyatt, Marshall
1990 Franz Boas, Social Activist - The Dynamics of Ethnicity. Greenwood Press,
New York.

Kroeber, A. L.
1943 Franz Boas - 1858-1942, in American Anthropologist. Vol. 45 July-September,
1943. The American Anthropological Association, New York.

Lowie, Robert H.
1937 The History of Ethnological Theory. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

Malinowski, Bronislaw
1922 Argonauts of the Western Pacific. Routledge, London.

McGee, R. Jon & Warms, Richard L.

2000 Anthropological Theory - An Introductory History, Second Edition.
Mayfield Publishing Company, London.
Naroll, Raoul and Frada Naroll
1973 Main Currents in CulturalAnthropology. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey.

Voget, Fred W.
1975 A History of Ethnology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.